CA AB 2013
Generative Artificial Intelligence: Training Data Transparency
Requires GenAI developers to publish documentation about training datasets including sources, data types, copyright status, personal information inclusion, and processing methods.
Jurisdiction
California
Enacted
Sep 28, 2024
Effective
Jan 1, 2026
Enforcement
Not specified (likely CA AG under unfair competition law)
Signed September 28, 2024; effective January 1, 2026
CA LegislatureWhy It Matters
Addresses training data transparency concerns. Relevant for IP/copyright discussions. Relatively light requirements (documentation only).
Recent Developments
Signed September 2024. Focuses on transparency about training data - relevant to copyright and data governance debates.
At a Glance
Who Must Comply
- Developers of GenAI systems publicly available to Californians
- Developers substantially modifying GenAI systems
Obligations fall on:
Safety Provisions
- High-level summary of training datasets
- Sources or owners of datasets
- Alignment with intended purpose
- Number and types of data points
- Copyright/trademark/patent/public domain status
- Whether datasets purchased or licensed
- Personal information or aggregate consumer data inclusion
- Synthetic data usage
- Data collection timeframes
- Cleaning/processing methods
Exemptions
National Security/Military
National security/military/defense systems (federal entities only)
- • Federal entity
- • National security purpose
Aircraft Operation
Systems for aircraft operation
- • Aircraft operation purpose
Security/Integrity Systems
Systems solely for security or integrity purposes
- • Security/integrity purpose only
Compliance & Enforcement
Key Dates
Jan 1, 2026
Training data documentation must be posted on website
Penalties
Not specified in statute
View on map
California
Focus Areas
Cite This
APA
California. (2024). Generative Artificial Intelligence: Training Data Transparency.
Related Regulations
CA SB 53
First US frontier AI transparency law. Requires large AI developers (>$500M revenue) to publish governance frameworks, submit quarterly risk reports, and report critical safety incidents. Applies to models trained with >10^26 FLOP.
CA CPPA ADMT
California Privacy Protection Agency regulations establishing consumer rights and business obligations for Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) that makes significant decisions including healthcare. Requires pre-use notice, opt-out rights, access rights, appeal rights, and risk assessments.
NY RAISE Act
Requires large AI developers of frontier models operating in New York to create safety protocols, report critical incidents within 72 hours, conduct annual reviews, and undergo independent audits. Creates dedicated DFS office funded by developer fees.
TX Healthcare AI Law
Requires healthcare practitioners using AI for diagnosis to review all AI-generated records and disclose AI use to patients. Mandates EHR data localization (Texas patient data must be physically stored in US). Applies to covered entities and third-party vendors.
LA Healthcare AI Act
Regulates use of artificial intelligence by healthcare providers in Louisiana. Permits AI for administrative tasks but prohibits AI from making treatment/diagnosis decisions without licensed professional review, directly interacting with patients on treatment matters, or generating therapeutic recommendations without professional approval.
VT AADC
Vermont design code structured to be more litigation-resistant: focuses on data processing harms rather than content-based restrictions. AG rulemaking authority begins July 2025.
Last updated January 23, 2026. Verify against primary sources before relying on this information.